..."They cannot see how much of the misery of human life is derived from the indulgence of wrath" - William Henry Seward

Saturday, January 26, 2008

New York Times Endorses Hillary Clinton

The New York Time endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for President in its January 25th editorial. The Times goes to great lengths to point out that the diffence in policy proposals between Clinton and Obama are slight, and the (perceived ability) to cross the aisle and work with the Republicans is strong, the paper never speaks to the 600 pound gorrilla for the Clinton(s) campaign - can she be elected?Most of you know my feeling about Hillary Clinton, that she will be devisive, polarizing, and she will, and, currently, is, resorting to Rovian tactics to win at all costs - tactics she is already using against Obama. The Clintons have no sense of shame by bringing in race into the election all the while, claiming Obama is the person that has raised the race issue - a flat out, egregious lie. The Clinton campaign has even gone so far as to discount a possible Obama win in South Carolina because, "the Clintons' bid to portray Obama, who is aiming to become the first black U.S. president, as the clear favorite, thereby lessening the potential fallout if Hillary Clinton does not win in South Carolina."(see link above for full story). Who is the one injecting race into the election? By discounting a possible win by Obama in S.C., the Clintons are boldy using race to strike fear in white and latinos Americans by saying, in essence, see the scary blacks are all behind Obama. These kind of tactics used the Clintons show just how much they disrespect the electorate. By choosing to tell these lies, the Clintons are hoping the electorate will not look at whether what they are saying is true. Do we really want someone in the White House that has such little respect for the very people that vote? These kind of tactics are something you expect to see the Republicans use with impunity, but to see a Democrat use? It's disgusting. Hillary Clinton even says, with a straight face, that she has "35 years of experience" to bring to the White House. Fortunately, NPR has done a little background investigating on that very question. There ample evidence of the lies the Clintons use as easily as breathing. My point is, do you see the lies stopping if Clinton makes it into the White House? And to the question of electibilty, as I said before, can she win in a general election?As Scott Martin says, "Many have known that Hillary has that unique ability to heal the fractures in the GOP." My feelings are she will not win in the general election for the very reason she will be a rallying cry for the GOP to come together, no matter who the GOP nominee will be. The memories of the first Clinton Presidency are too fresh in the minds of many Americans to want to bring back the drama of the Clinton years (and this is coming from someone that voted both times for Clinton).Back to the NYTimes endorsement. The Times talks about how Clinton will be able to work with the GOP because she has worked with the GOP while in the Senate. But the Times fails to consider that it is easier to "cross the aisle" as a Senator than as a President. The way the country views the parties, would a Republican be able to be seen working with a Democratic President? More than anyone, the President is scrutinized for every move, likewise any Senator that is seen as working with the President. This is not the same in the Congress. Members of Congress can work together without the scrutiny, and, therefore, the pressure of the electorate when crossing the aisle. I fear that the pressure for a Senator not to be seen as working with a Democratic President would be to great - we would, again, see the gridlock and partisen fighting we have seen with the current administration if the Clintons are elected. Barack Obama has shown he has a better chance of wininng against the Republican.